You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
We need more of this, because secular rationality, like syntax and grammar are highly overrated.
The religiously deluded are up to their old tricks. The corporate media will always take the easy story as it will sell ads, and ads are what they all about. The disproportionate amount of attention this church and pastor have received shows how completely our news agencies are failing in their duty to provide citizens with information that is relevant to their lives.
“A Florida minister who had been considering burning copies of the Qur’an to mark the anniversary of 9/11 will not go ahead with the plan on Saturday, his son said.
“There will be no Qur’an burning tomorrow,” Terry Jones’s 29-year old son, Luke Jones, told reporters outside his father’s Gainesville church Friday. But Luke Jones said he did not know if it might happen in the future.”
Kind of anti-climactic after all the hoopla. It is almost like they realized they were acting like douche-nozzles and decided to retreat from the stupidity of their position.
“On a confusing Thursday, Jones initially said he had decided to call off the burning because of a deal negotiated with Musri that organizers of the effort to build an Islamic centre near Ground Zero had agreed to move its location.
Musri replied that he could only set up a meeting with Rauf.
Later that night, Jones claimed Musri “clearly, clearly lied to us” about the centre being moved.”
Typical christain mendacity as the meeting with the Imam seems to only have happened in Jones’s mind. But, blaming the other party for your failure is pretty much standard operation procedure.
The next quote is from President Obama who waded into this story, giving it undeserved legitimacy. He pontificates about how bad this whole situation could potentially be and how it will affect America’s image abroad. All Obama needed to do was dismiss this menagerie of clowns and continue with matters that were actually relevant to the American people. But he does not:
“Earlier Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama said that burning copies of the Qur’an is “contrary to what [America] was
Giving unwarranted attention to the deluded.
founded on” and “the best imaginable recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Obama referred to but did not name Terry Jones.
“The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else’s religion is contrary to what this country stands for,” Obama said. “It’s contrary to what this nation was founded on, and my hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it.”
Obama had already condemned Jones’s plan, joining other political leaders, top military officials and foreign dignitaries who have said burning the Qur’an would provoke militants in Afghanistan and put the lives of international soldiers in jeopardy.”
Newsflash: American’s reputation abroad sucks. This particular incident, given the general foreign policy direction of the US, is minor compared to what the US currently doing.
It enlightening to watch as one group of religious crazies can derail the entire media cycle, but hey, forgoing responsible reporting and instead prioritizing profits is all we can really expect of the news media these days. If they had only covered the story like this:
This article from Al Jazeera is yet another exemplar of how societies, if they wish to have freedom and human rights as key features, must steer away from theocracy and toward rational, secular rule.
Religion: Persecuting and possibly executing human rights activists.
Shiva Nazar-Ahari charged with “warring against God” and having links to opposition groups as trial opens in Tehran.
A court in Tehran, the Iranian capital, has tried a female human rights activist and journalist on charges including “warring against God,” which has the potential punishment of death.
Shiva Nazar-Ahari, 26, went on trial on Saturday “on charges of Moharebeh [warring against God], conspiring and gathering to commit a crime, propaganda against the regime and harming public order,” Mohammad Sharif, her lawyer, said.
How lovely; and sadly, unsurprising as the corrosive effects of religion are clearly on display for the world to see. Where religion is a dominant force we can simply toss away rational thought and belief in reality. You can be put to death for creating war on fictive characters that most likely do not exist.
Consider, if god is omnipotent, does he really need to be defended by mere mortals? I would think that if he existed he could deal quite succinctly with anyone that brought war to his house. However, in context of a human based and perpetuated theocracy that will actually kill people who dare to question its bullshite beliefs the reasons are evident. Persecuting people for calling the deluded on their fatuous nonsense becomes a useful method for dealing with dissent and rational objections to state endorsed mythology.
“But the story here is not about a trial or seeking to get to the bottom of a crime. It is about trying to created a narrative that the authorities would like to portrary about justifying the continued clampdown that we are seeing in this country.
A sham trial that is propping up a vapid theocracy, nothing new here. Expect more to come soon as Tehran roots out more people who dare to make war on imaginary beings.
*Update: The situation is not improving.
Can religion get any more insipidly weird? Apparently the answer is yes.
DIGHTON —
“Phone calls from God still had some children in awe Thursday morning at St. Nicholas of Myra vacation bible school.
“He told me to fish for people,” 8-year-old Noelle Nunes said, “and tell everyone about him.”
“He told me to follow in his footsteps,” 7-year-old Jack Dubois said. “The phone call really surprised me. He didn’t say an awful lot, he just told me to follow him.”
Every child participating in this program received a call from God Wednesday as they took part in games, music and crafts all this week at the church’s vacation bible school.
Impersonating god is a no-no according the christian magic book of choice, but hey if it reinforces the tragic brainwashing endured by children it must be good.
I’m just waiting till someone tries to rig a talking burning bush – Hilarity, I promise, would ensue.
Phone calls from and singing with god!
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
[16] The “evolution is a belief” nonsense.
At this point, it should be sufficient for me to point to [2], [4] and [6] above, and tell those entertaining this fatuous idea to go and learn something. However, I suspect that the attention span of the typical creationist is such that a reminder is needed at this point. And that reminder is now forthcoming.
When scientists provide hard evidence supporting their postulates, in the form of direct empirical tests of the validity of those postulates, “belief” is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has happened time and time and time again in evolutionary biology, and once more, if you can’t be bothered to read the actual scientific papers in question in order to learn this, then you are in no position to critique a theory that has been subject to more thorough critical scrutiny than you can even imagine is possible. Oh, and as an indication of the size of the task ahead of you, if you think you’re hard enough to dismiss the scientific evidence on a case by case basis, you have over a million scientific papers to peruse that have been published in the past 150 years. Be advised that tossing one paper into the bin isn’t enough, you have to toss ALL of them into the bin. Good luck on that one.
Just in case this hasn’t registered here, the critical thinkers regard belief itself as intellectually invalid. If you have to ask why, then again, you are in need of an education, and badly.
As a corollary of the above, I now turn my attention to:
[17] “You only believe in evolution because you hate god”.
Anyone posting this particular piece of drivel, and make no mistake, it IS drivel, is quite frankly beneath deserving of a point of view. Erectors of this sub-amoeboid, cretinous, verminous, pestilential and thoroughly decerebrate cortical faeces are not considered to be worth the small amount of effort required to treat them with utter disdain, let alone the greater effort required to subject them to actual contempt.
Aside from the fact that I have dealt with the “belief” bullshit in [16] above, and aside from the fact that I’ve dealt with the complete failure of supernaturalists to provide any evidence for their pet magic man back in [1] above (yes, you need a proper attention span if you’re going to engage in debate here), and as a corollary of this latter point, we’d like to know how one can “hate” an entity whose very existence has only ever been supported by vacuous apologetics instead of genuine evidence, this particular favourite meme of creationists is singularly retarded because it misses the whole point by several thousand light years. Allow me to remind you all once again, first that the critical thinkers do not regard “belief” as intellectually valid full stop, and that the critical thinkers accept the validity of evolution because REALITY supports it. THAT is what counts here, because it is what counts in professional scientific circles. You can whinge, moan, bitch and bleat all you like with respect to this moronic canard, but be advised that people who paid attention in classes at school regard this canard as one of the most utterly spastic pieces of apologetics in existence, and given the fulminating level of stupidity that has emanated from apologetics over the years, this makes the above canard rather special.
While we’re at it, let’s deal with one polemical argument that was presented to me recently, and one which is again entirely specious. Namely, the argument that evolutionary theory was erected “to kill off the idea of a creator”. Er, no it wasn’t. Anyone who follows the actual history of the development of evolutionary theory will know that it was erected to provide an explanation for observed biodiversity, and to provide an explanation for observed dynamic change in populations of living organisms. I know that creationists love to erect specious doctrine-centred arguments such as this (which dovetails with the doctrine-centred thinking and specious apologetics covered in [15] above), but such specious doctrine-centred arguments are, not to put too fine a point on it, blatant lies. Just because creationists can’t accept that someone might alight upon a view of the world that doesn’t rely upon doctrinal presuppositions doesn’t mean that such a view cannot exist. But then, the entire creationist argument consists of asserting that the world conforms to their ignorant wishful thinking, so it’s no surprise that they adopt the same view with respect to the development of scientific theories. So, if you erect any of the “you hate god” or other specious polemical pseudo-arguments here, be prepared to endure much mockery for doing so, especially if you do so after being directed here and told to learn from this.
The infidels are swarming in the middle east. Measures must be taken to combat this outbreak of critical thought and rationality. Fortunately brothers (any sisters present get out now, double shame if you’re not barefoot and burqa’d) action is being taken.
“CAIRO – Egypt’s most prominent democracy advocate accused President Hosni Mubarak’s government Saturday of posting Facebook photos of his daughter in swimsuits and at events where alcohol was served in an attempt to discredit him.
Keep your eyes on this 'atheist'!
Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former U.N. nuclear chief, was quoted in the independent Al-Dustour newspaper as saying the government is “waging a campaign of sheer lies” by using the photos to portray him and his family as nonbelievers — a politically damaging accusation in an increasingly conservative Muslim country.
We have the infidels, women in public with bathing suits and even a greater sin, dare I say it? Alcohol. Warm up your stoning arms people.
“The more than 30 photos were posted under the title: “Secrets of 
the ElBaradei family.” Some show his daughter in swimsuits at the beach and sitting at events in front of what appeared to be bottles of alcohol. Drinking is forbidden in Islam and conservative Muslims would generally consider a woman appearing publicly in a bathing suit to be immodest.”
The scandal. It is shocking. Truly shocking.
“ElBaradei has drawn the government’s anger with a campaign he started early this year boldly calling for electoral reform and constitutional amendments that would allow a credible candidate to challenge the ruling party in next year’s presidential election.
Respected internationally and untouched by the corruption tainting much of Egypt’s regime, ElBaradei brought together a coalition of young activists and opposition groups to push for change.”
Yes! We shall smear this activist for opposing our regime. There may be a few rotten apples in the barrel of the Egyptian government, overall we are a transparent, open democracy.
“The Facebook site also says his daughter is married to a Christian and shows an image of what it purports is her real profile from the social networking site listing her religious status as agnostic.
The Facebook site also accuses ElBaradei himself of being an atheist and of seeking to deceive Egyptians by touring mosques and being photographed praying.”
The forces of freedom in action.
We saved the best for last a double hit! ElBaradei’s daughter is married to a Christian and ElBaradei himself is an atheist!
Checkmate brothers! We have ferreted out this unbeliever in our midst, he claims he wants responsible government by the people, but we have exposed him. He wants to take our gods away and we all know the sinful immorality that will follow once that happens.
Never fear though brothers we shall keep reason safely at arms length! Allah Ackbar!
The links between the Tea Party and scripture were hazy and undefined. Mr.Current does a wonderful job of illuminating the connections and bringing enlightenment to all.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
Enjoy!
[14] The “no transitional forms” canard.
In order to deal with this one, I have the following to ask. Namely:
[1] Have you ever studied comparative anatomy in detail, at a proper, accredited academic institution?
[2] Do you understand rigorously what is meant by “species”?
[3] Do you understand even the basics of inheritance and population genetics?
[4] Do you understand the basics of the workings of meiosis?
If you cannot answer “yes” to all four of the above, then you are in no position to erect this canard. And, canard it is, as anyone with a proper understanding of the dynamic nature of species will readily understand, a topic I have posted at length on in the past. Indeed, you only have to ask yourself the following question, “Am I identical to either of my parents?” in order to alight quickly upon why this canard IS a canard. Your own family photo album supplies you with the answer here. YOU are a “transitional form” between your parents and your offspring, should you have any offspring.
[15] The “evolutionist” canard (with “Darwinist” side salad).
Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandise for a doctrine, it’s the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here, that I was surprised to find that I’d missed it out of the original list, but I had more pressing concerns to attend to when compiling the list originally. However, having been reminded of it, now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.
There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. Why do I say this? Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever. For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word “evolutionist” is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a “doctrine”, and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori “assumptions” (see [3] above). This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of “symmetry” between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago (see [2] above). When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.
Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them “gravitationists”? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them “microbists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell’s Equations make them “electromagnetists”? Does their acceptance of of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them “quantumists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them “stellarists”? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.
While we’re at it, let’s deal with the duplicitous side salad known as “Darwinist”. The critical thinkers here know why this particular discoursive elision is erected, and the reason is related to the above. Basically, “Darwinist” is erected for the specific purpose of suggesting that the only reason people accept evolution is because they bow uncritically to Darwin as an authority figure. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, droolingly encephalitic drivel of a particularly suppurating order. Let’s provide a much needed education once and for all here.
Darwin is regarded as historically important because he founded the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology, and in the process, converted biology from a cataloguing exercise into a proper empirical science. The reason Darwin is considered important is NOT because he is regarded uncritically as an “authority figure” – the critical thinkers leave this sort of starry-eyed gazing to followers of the likes of William Lane Craig. Darwin is regarded as important because he was the first person to pay serious attention to reality with respect to the biosphere, with respect to the business of determining mechanisms for its development, and the first to engage in diligent intellectual labour for the purpose of establishing that reality supported his postulates with respect to the biosphere. In other words, instead of sitting around accepting uncritically mythological blind assertion, he got off his arse, rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, put in the long hours performing the research and gathering the real world data, and then spending long hours determining what would falsify his ideas and determining in a rigorous manner that no such falsification existed. For those who are unaware of this, the requisite labour swallowed up twenty years of his life, which is par for the course for a scientist introducing a new paradigm to the world. THAT is why he is regarded as important, because he expended colossal amounts of labour ensuring that REALITY supported his ideas. That’s the ONLY reason ANY scientist acquires a reputation for being a towering contributor to the field, because said scientist toils unceasingly for many years, in some cases whole decades, ensuring that his ideas are supported by reality in a methodologically rigorous fashion.
Additionally, just in case this idea hasn’t crossed the mind of any creationist posting here, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin, and whilst his historical role is rightly recognised, the critical thinkers have also recognised that more recent developments have taken place that would leave Darwin’s eyes out on stalks if he were around to see them. The contributors to the field after Darwin are numerous, and include individuals who contributed to the development of other branches of science making advances in evolutionary theory possible. Individuals such as Ronald Fisher, who developed the mathematical tools required to make sense of vast swathes of biological data (heard of analysis of variance? Fisher invented it), or Theodosius Dobzhansky, who combined theoretical imagination with empirical rigour, and who, amongst other developments, provided science with a documented instance of speciation in the laboratory. Other seminal contributors included Müller (who trashed Behe’s nonsense six decades before Behe was born), E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Sewall Wright, Jerry Coyne, Carl Woese, Kenneth Miller, and they’re just the ones I can list off the top of my head. Pick up any half-decent collection of scientific papers from the past 100 years, and dozens more names can be added to that list.
So, anyone who wants to be regarded as an extremely low-grade chew toy here only has to erect the “evolutionist” or “Darwinist” canard, and they will guarantee this end result.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…